If it so upsets and frightens you when I comment in this thread, then don’t lie about me in this thread, you idiots.

Here’s an idea, either answer the questions put to you, and in the appropriate thread, or continue playing with your sand. You lie by evasion, simple.

[1] You are too abrasive to deserve being addressed by your first, this especially as you think, because you assumed, that addressing me through the collective ‘A family’ would be an insult, it isn’t, I will leave you to work out why.

Lest anybody be in any doubt about the bad faith displayed by the likes of Nova/Codling then here is another eye opener as Lord Monckton Threatens Climate Scientists, Again with the Monckton’s nauseating letter being posted up at that aforementioned blog, which is in turn nauseating.

@ 98
I’m alive tonight to speak about the prophets and the geeks in mile aroma interride where the pool dogs send their missions. Maybe you could aim to enjoy some of our free steel wind in the engine room – it doesn’t have a resentful default.

“Perhaps a better question to ask is why is this happening?
Are you sure you’re pointing your finger at the right culprits?”

Oh, I am certainly pointing my finger at the proper culprits alright. the corporate media, right wing think tanks and web logs – and, underlying this, the corporations themselves, and an entire culture of profit-driven overconsumption – are far and away the primary culprits. They prey on public naivete as well as the desperate desire most people have to believe that they are not a part of the problem.

O. K., Andy, I’m beginning to get the feel for your schtick. I can see appreciation of it is an “acquired” taste and, I must confess, I’m beginning to “cotton” to it.

There’s an interesting gent with the handle “willard”, who frequently comments at Dr. Curry’s blog. And willard’s comments have some qualities in common with yours–cryptic and over my head. In one of my rare ham-handed tries at that sense-of-humor “thingie”, that Wow seems to be urging on me lately, I described willard’s comments as seemingly the work of a “Krell” (reference to an old sci-fi flick) Ascended Master.

I think, Andy, you’re probably my second encounter with the Krell-elect. I’m honored. But, fair warning, Andy, I’m wily enough not to engage Krell Ascended Masters on terrain of their choosing and with weapons of their choice–I know my limitations.

Your last? Reminds me of some poems–“Symbolist”, I think they were called–my High-School, French teacher once assigned us ungrateful barbarians to read. To say the least, I didn’t “get” the poems (my laughable ineptitude in French undoubtedly contributing), but I did learn, to my surprise, that one could enjoy a poem without “getting” it. Kinda reminds me of your last.

And I’m further glad that you’ve been so kind, Andy, as to toss a comment my humble way with multiple lines. I mean, like, who am I to judge a Krell Ascended Master, and all, but, still, IMHO, Andy, your one-liners just do not do your “art” justice.

Let me get this straight. Just by openly, honestly and patiently declining to answer questions

— you’ve already answered multiple times
— which became boring about ten iterations ago
— with whose answer only a handful of people you find increasingly obnoxious and disturbing are preoccupied
— for which you’ve got better things to do with your limited time than provide the “references required”
— you’re not paid to answer
and / or
— you’re not qualified to answer,

you now render yourself fair game for characterization as a liar?!

This changes everything. No joke: you and your collaborators deserve a Nobel for this.

You are too abrasive to deserve being addressed by your first [name, “Brad”], this [sic] especially as you think, because you assumed, that addressing me through the collective ‘A family’ would be an insult

Ah. That clichéd thin line between genius and debilitating social paranoia.

You think, because you assumed, that addressing you through the collective ‘A family’ was meant to be an insult. Why?!

By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.

Why the fuck is Brad still posting on the open thread?

Here’s a suggestion. Let’s self-police:

Lionel:

answer the questions put to you … You lie by evasion, simple.

ZOMG!

Congratulations are in order, simple.

You believalists have invented a totally new way of lying!

Let me get this straight. Just by openly, honestly and patiently declining to answer questions

— you’ve already answered multiple times
— which became boring about ten iterations ago
— with whose answer only a handful of people you find increasingly obnoxious and disturbing are preoccupied
— for which you’ve got better things to do with your limited time than provide the “references required”
— you’re not paid to answer
and / or
— you’re not qualified to answer,

you now render yourself fair game for characterization as a liar?!

This changes everything. No joke: you and your collaborators deserve a Nobel for this.

You are too abrasive to deserve being addressed by your first [name, “Brad”], this [sic] especially as you think, because you assumed, that addressing me through the collective ‘A family’ would be an insult

Ah. That clichéd thin line between genius and debilitating social paranoia.

You think, because you assumed, that addressing you through the collective ‘A family’ was meant to be an insult. Why?!

Olap doesn’t recognise that McIntyre’s a paranoid always on the verge (but never actually) about to uncover something.
It’s a tired act after all these years, but the peanut gallery have short attention spans.

Obviously climate science is a commie scam to overthrow capitalism and facilitate the establishment of a new world order run on good socialist principles.

How can I have been so blind?!

I’ve been working on my two (shoe) box climate model and my latest findings indicate that the astonishingly warm January may have been the result of absorption/re-radiation of thermal IR by black helicopters.

Funny how the warmists want to talk about El Niño. You’ve got to watch the pea under the thimble with these guys.

Just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. It’s the same as the post-1970 warming. *We know* it wasn’t CO2 and *we know* that government-funded ‘climate science’ is blind to teh truth because it’s a scam.

The Australian summer over 2012 and 2013 has been defined by extreme weather events across much of the continent, including record-breaking heat, severe bushfires, extreme rainfall and damaging flooding. Extreme heatwaves and catastrophic bushfire conditions during the Angry Summer were made worse by climate change.
All weather, including extreme weather events is influenced by climate change. All extreme weather events are now occurring in a climate system that is warmer and moister than it was 50 years ago. This influences the nature, impact and intensity of extreme weather events.
Australia’s Angry Summer shows that climate change is already adversely affecting Australians. The significant impacts of extreme weather on people, property, communities and the environment highlight the serious consequences of failing to adequately address climate change.
It is highly likely that extreme hot weather will become even more frequent and severe in Australia and around the globe, over the coming decades. The decisions we make this decade will largely determine the severity of climate change and its influence on extreme events for our grandchildren.
It is critical that we are aware of the influence of climate change on many types of extreme weather so that communities, emergency services and governments prepare for the risk of increasingly severe and frequent extreme weather.

JeffH @ 11?
You were pointing your finger at ‘academic wannabes’ and people who hide in the shadows in your earlier comment.
Now it sounds like you believe in some type of conspiracy that is being run by corporations.
I would like to know your definition of ‘academic wannabes’.
It read as if you were complaining that ‘scientists’ have been demonised and they have lost the ‘trust’ of ghe general population.
You also seem to have missed the main point of my comment.
If I substitued ‘agriculture’ or ‘manufacturing’ or ‘mining’ as 3 examples (all have science & technology arms) they would be making largely similar complaints to yours

I should probably add medicine and/or health to those 3 above.
Also, I did mean to re ask the question in the light of my original comment.
Why is ‘social licence’ being lost so rapidly?
Bill earlier highlighted the likely demise of the Labor govt later this year.
Is that part of the symptoms/causes of loss of trust/social licence?

Chameleon, we established you had no idea what that paper on Eemian sea levels was on about.

I find it hard to believe that you could even imagine yourself successfully participating in an intelligent discussion on the public’s trust in science following the deluge of well-funded professional anti-science PR propagated around the world’s mass media since the 1960s.

You could read the excellent, “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes if you’re interested, though.

Can’t say I’ve followed McIntyre’s latest theory about Mann – following McIntyre’s largely quixotic obsessions in great detail is generally a waste of time – but if you can access this Facebook photo Mann appears to be addressing something McIntyre (and Watts?) recently wrote, which is probably what Olaus was referring to complete with his trademark fake winkey.

According to Mann, in the real world, McIntyre is wrong in almost every claim he made in this matter and has invented a conspiracy theory to go with those falsehoods – and according to the first comment, McIntyre is also wrong what Oreskes said as part of that theory.

Go read for yourself, especially if you’re inclined to take McIntyre’s claims at face value.

And while you’re at it, go to Mann’s Facebook Timeline page and read the response to Joanne Nova’s post about Monckton’s recent claims that Mann fabricated the “hockey stick” and had given up suing Tim Ball for calling the graph “scientific fraud”:

What is most peculiar about the false assertion that we “gave up” the defamation suit against Mr. Ball … is that this statement appeared on the very day that my lawyer … was DEPOSING BALL as part of the discovery phase of the lawsuit.

Yes, Chebbie, please do equal the feat of reading MoD in less than 4 hours. As it flies past in a soothingly incomprehensible blur perhaps you’ll also be unable to ‘recall’ anything regarding the subject of the entire last chapter, and, who knows, you may even stoop to febrile, grotesque claims of ‘anti-semitism’ in an attempt to cover up your abject lack of comprehension?…

Pardon Bill?
What on earth are you and Vince saying re MoD?
Did you read it in 4 hours?
Does MoD contain information about racial vilification?
?????
Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else?
Neither of you have done a very good job of promoting it to me BTW.

Pardon Bill?
What on earth are you and Vince saying re MoD?
Did you read it in 4 hours?

Odin on a stick. You’re truly so dense you’d make osmium blush.

For someone who tries to hang off every one of Keyes’ words you seem to miss the most basic of his statements. It was Keyes who claimed to read Merchants of Doubt in less than four hours – is it that you don’t actually read his words as closely as you like to pretend? You wouldn’t be agreeing with him simply because he’s at odds with the best science on climatological change, and its consequences… would you?!

Speaking of Keyes, several people have already pointed out how he’s recently been sneaking away from his naughty corner whilst Tim Lambert’s not been looking. It seems that he seeks attention elsewhere now that the Bangelina thread has been depopulated as folk tire of the Keyes schtick.

It’s possibly because a rather large % of the comments at this thread are about the BradK thread BJ.
I should have realised that was what was happening again.
Now that you mention it, I do recall a trade of insults over the time taken to read MoD.
I actually thought that Bill and Vince were trying to recommend a book to me.
That explains why they did a bloody awful job of it.
BTW BJ?
Did you get my answer to your question at the BK thread?

Those who do context – and (irony) my point is that’s not you! – had already worked that out.

And I haven’t done a very good job of promoting it to someone who still maintains, steadfastly – and, indeed, heroically – in the face of mere evidence and reason, that James Delingpole said something he very clearly did not? Oh woe betide me; now I shall sob myself to sleep!

I went to climateaudit and found it as dense as usual and full of mangled conspiracist ideation.

McIntyre has had 3 months to stew over his latest conspiracy theory. On other occasions he’s jumped straight into concocting paranoid conspiracies (the world conspired against him by banning him from the internet via his IP address).

He’s weird. No other word for it. He railed at Lewandowsky while providing some good fodder for Recursive Furies. He managed to acquire and bury the AScott survey (a la Lewandowsky) of conspiracy theorists and free marketers at WUWT. Parlly because he doesn’t know how to analyse the data (as shown in his crazy series of articles about Lewandowsky). Mostly probably mainly because he hasn’t figured out how to ignore all the responses from conspiracy theorists without coming across as a dishonest fool.

Obsessive, paranoid and serial harasser of climate scientists.

Mann exposed him nicely – and did an excellent take down of batty Nova.

I should add, the sum total of McIntyres’ latest conspiracy is that at one point in his presentation, Mann used an illustration from a 2008 publication.

You’ve gotta laugh. McIntyre has spent numerous hours fretting over diagrams from more than twenty years ago (superseded/developed/confirmed by many more recent studies). Then complains about someone else using a graphic illustration from 2008.

Whilst we’re on about McIntyre, I seem to recall someone reporting that he seemed to be following Mann around at a conference with what appeared to be a very … single-minded? … focus. One has to suspect that it was at the AGU conference that forms the context for McIntyre’s latest conspiracy theory…

You could read the excellent, “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes if you’re interested, though.

And you have come back twice now, claiming,:

Neither of you have done a very good job of promoting it to me BTW.

I actually thought that Bill and Vince were trying to recommend a book to me.
That explains why they did a bloody awful job of it.

Are you able to explain why I’ve done a bad job at promoting it to you? Calling it “excellent”?
Sounds to me like you are scared of the idea of reading a non-picture-book and/or of reading something that exposes the cranks, crooks, frauds and liars from whom you get your climate information.

One might also speculate what he will do when the remaining regulars get tired of responding to him, assuming that actually happens. The Jonas thread was active a lot longer than I imagined it would be.

“Now it sounds like you believe in some type of conspiracy that is being run by corporations”

There’s nothing conspiratorial about it. Its just a simple fact. Huge sums of money are being invested into the anti-AGW slush fund by a suite of industries who see legislation aimed at curbing fossil fuel use as a threat to the way that they do business. Hence their funding of think tanks, weblogs, public relations firms and astroturf groups with public outreach.

If you don’t think this is happening, then you are even dumber than I thought. And that is saying a lot.

Then get MOD out of your local library and improve your topic knowledge still further. Two years hard work with climate textbooks and you’ll be about up to basic speed. Then, at last, we might start to get somewhere.

Remember that a hallmark of pathological denial is the extreme reluctance (outright blanket refusal, really) of sufferers to even look at evidence which challenges their hermetic but comforting fantasy state.

Don’t mind me, everyone—I’m not really here, as BBD says when he’s pretending not to be somewhere he promised he wouldn’t be.

bill:

Ah, but, Vince, if people like you and I recommend a book, well… Guilt By Association, and all that.

Er, except that the book has bipartisan recommendation—see the main thread.

But even if it didn’t, you have no right to project your fondness for the genetic fallacy onto Chameleon.

Unlike adherents to a certain scientific proto-hypothesis which shall go unnamed, Chameleon (in common with me) goes out of her way to read and understand the other side’s views.

So I’d like to emphasise to Chameleon: Oreskes’ book provides an excellent window into their ideation.

Everybody:

If you’d like to agree/disagree with my book recommendation, please don’t hesitate to shift over to the appropriate venue.

But let’s not get into an argument here—I’m trying to minimize my visits to the minor threads, because I know how my presence upsets and frightens some of the littler deltoids. Just watch: all I’ve done is poke my head in, but they’ll be off their feed for 2 hours and nervously chattering about bradbradbrad. Naptime will be a nightmare!

I think it would be much healthier to let them develop a life of their own with interests outside Brad, hence my resolution to stick to my thread unless intervention is truly needed elsewhere (e.g. if some particularly-obsessed player-hater keeps libellously hating on me or someone I like).

But let’s not get into an argument here—I’m trying to minimize my visits to the minor threads, because I know how my presence upsets and frightens some of the littler deltoids. Just watch: all I’ve done is poke my head in, but they’ll be off their feed for 2 hours and nervously chattering about bradbradbrad.

Keyes, to paraphrase an old chestnut, it’s better to shut up and be thought a narcissist than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.

Over time the costs of onshore and offshore wind are coming down as we get better at building them. Meanwhile, the cost of gas is increasing as fuel costs and carbon prices rise. The independent Committee on Climate Change thinks onshore wind will become cheaper than gas in 2023.

This means that relying more on gas up to 2030 by building more gas-fired power stations would cost the economy £312m or up to £478m if gas prices are higher than expected. This equates to between £10 and £15 per household.

By contrast, decarbonising the power sector and largely eliminating polluting gas will mean that energy costs are only likely to vary by around £51 per household.

And moving to a cleaner energy system (in line with the amendment) would not lead to increases in energy bills as Halfon implies. In fact, it would result in small cost savings – across the economy of at least £163m if gas prices rise in line with DECC’s expectations. If gas prices are at the upper bound of expectations, the saving from going green could be £249m.

Monsanto is no stranger to patent battles: Think Progress reports that the company devotes $10 million per year and 75 staffers to investigating and prosecuting farmers for patent violations. It has also sued more than 400 farmers over the last 13 years for patent infringement.

It’s a worry that 90% of soy farms are using Monsanto seed. They’ve effectively contaminated most of the seed bank in the USA, so that anyone who seeks to use non-patented varieties would find it almost impossible to buy stock without Roundup-Ready seed in the mix.

I’m surprised that this monopolisation of a whole species’ genetic legacy via the agency of contamination, which by the way was “guaranteed” to be preventable, doesn’t seem to break any laws.

Pro what?!?!?! If I am correct, chammy seems to intimate that those opposed to the corporate takeover of food production and hence the human food chain are possibly ‘anti-agriculture’. That’s like saying those opposed to ginormous hydro-electric projects which devastate communities downriver as well as huge expanses of natural ecosystems are ‘anti-water’.

Essentially its the old gambit that those who oppose environmentally destructive technologies are ‘anti-progress’ and hence ‘anti-human’. This comes straight out of the Wise Use/corporate public relations handbook. Trust chammy to bring it up.

Also, perhaps any of our regular ‘skeptics’ would like to identify the ’16 year pause in warming’ the Earth has supposedly experienced in Watt’s own chart?

What, nobody?

From now on I suggest that anytime one of these fools drops that noxious little thought-virus into a thread, they should be referred to this chart – one of their own, after all – and be asked to identify it.

I’m pro-agriculture, obviously, as I am against farmers being sued by a megacorporation with whom they have no contract on account of that corporation’s product being allowed to contaminate the food supply.

Seriously, do you really need an explanation for my comment and Vince’s?!

Or do you disagree with the principle that a farmer should have the right to plant seeds and grow crops without being stood over by a multinational holding out for a share of the profits? Given the ubiquitousness of Monsanto’s GE soy across the US market, and the tragically easy manner in which such seed contaminates sowing stocks, it will soon be effectively impossible for soy farmers to source open-pollinated/non-patented seed that does not contain material originating from Monsanto. That’s a very neat trick for co-opting a whole industry, even when many parts of that industry want no part of the co-opter’s influence.

It strikes me that I could do the same. I could patent, say, a GE wheat variety, and sell it in the grain market. Of course, my trials would have shown that it is impossible for my variety to trespass beyond the confines of approved growing areas, so it would be self-evident that anyone growing it without a license was stealing my property. Given the sympathy that Monsanto has from regulators, if seeds from my strain just ‘happened’ to find their way into the crops and the sowing stocks of major wheat farmers who want nothing to do with my variety, all I’d need to do it to power up my lawyers – et voila! – and I’m raking in the fat from a whole sector.

Of course, to you that might sound like extortion, like stand-over tactics. Or it might not – you’ve repeatedly demonstrated such an embarrassingly lack of cognitive process that it would surprise me to find that you have no issue with a company privatising public commons by the expedient of overly-protected patents.

A bit awkward to say “bye-bye” to all and then show back up the next day or so, I know. But my little “farewell” decision was mine to make and, the blog-master permitting, mine to unmake.

At the same time, after a spell of reflection–to include an episode of pounding on my forehead with the edge of my fist while intoning “Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!”–I’ve recovered my resolve to put “daylight” between myself and Deltoid-land. I mean, like, the last thing I want in my life is a tit-for-tat chit-chat with BernadJ. So, BJ, you get to claim the”bragging-rights”–I’m the one who quit the “field of honor.”